The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.
Considering sending spam? Read this first.
That's what last night was -- identical to going to the zoo and watching the monkeys sling poo at each other. Appalling and amusing at the same time.
If I was supposed to be surprised by any of that, I wasn't.
Let's talk about what little we learned.
First, Trump didn't come to debate, he came intending a brawl and was perfectly happy to have one. Exactly how you persuade someone to vote for you in that format is unknown. I can't imagine his tactics gained him one vote.
But -- before I go on with Trump and Biden, can I talk about the so-called "moderator"? Better -- explain to me why Trump's side of the aisle consented to such a "debate" with such a "moderator" in the first place. The wording of the questions was so wildly slanted that frankly, were I up there, I'd have spent the first 30 seconds of each of my segments nuking the dude in the middle! The most-glaring and outrageous was toward the end, where Chris Wallace asked about "right wing extremist and white supremacist" groups and demanded Trump denounce them after repeating the lie, discredited via hard proof of the original statement on tape years ago, about "very fine people", while ignoring that the riots in Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, Seattle (CHOP zone anyone?), Kenosha and elsewhere have all been initiated by the radical left.
Yeah, I know about Rittenhouse. I've seen the videos; we can argue whether he should have been there (and if not, why is it that others who don't live in Kenosha had a right to be there and commit arson and loot in the town if he did not) but having been set upon and attacked he exhibited a remarkable amount of restraint in that he only fired on the people who were actually assaulting him, despite having a fully-loaded magazine. Indeed, I'm not sure you could trust a National Guard member to not unload the entire magazine into the mob that was after him. For a 17 year old that was remarkable. Of the two most-clear from the videos that are now in the public domain one man who he shot clocked him with a deadly weapon (a skateboard) and the second drew a pistol and was intending to kill him when he was shot in his weapon arm and prevented from doing so. Indeed, the second guy admitted after the fact that he drew because he intended to kill Rittenhouse.
I predict that despite whatever "process" comes he's acquitted in the fullness of time, as I've said before. The evidence is quite clear. Bust him for being a minor in possession of a firearm in Wisconsin if you wish; that's a misdemeanor. What's quite-clear is that if he didn't have the firearm or didn't shoot he'd be dead. In any rational world that's pretty-much the definition of self-defense, don't you think?
That's one guy. Ok, how about all the other guys? Floyd was jacked on drugs; the autopsy makes that clear. He almost-certainly expired from the fentanyl in his body, not from what the police did. Was that "excessive force"? Not clear. What is clear is that he didn't go quietly when arrested, and as I've pointed out many times in this column over the years there is no resisting arrest unless you're too stupid to be considered human; at the point the lights come on or "put your hands up, you're under arrest!" is shouted at you there are only two options: You fight it out in court or you kill every cop that's there right where they stand. Why? Because you can't successfully "resist arrest", it simply adds to whatever penalty you have coming for whatever offense you may have committed and as soon as you "resist" not only is it futile but you've just multiplied the penalty and you did it by your own hand. That's retard-level stupid.
Floyd isn't the only example. Louisville was about the cops returning fire after they were shot at! Was the warrant for the wrong place? Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter, and despite the warrant authorizing "no knock" entry (which I agree should be binned immediately and forevermore) they did knock and announce themselves and got shot at in response. Are you telling me that if someone shoots at the cops they can't shoot back? Since when?
What was the excuse in Chicago to sack MagMile? Was that "white supremacists"? That would be rather odd given that all I saw was black people doing the looting in the video that's been posted. Last time I checked the odds of a black person being a white supremacist are approximately equal to my hitting the Powerball today.
Shall we talk about the fact that Obama (Joe's two-term administration as VP, remember?) was associated with real no-bull**** domestic terrorists -- The Weather Underground? They liked to bomb things. Did Obama ever have anything to do with that criminality? Not that I know of, but Biden and Obama's connection to actual domestic terrorism is more clear than Trump's is to white supremacists.
Where is the demand that all of those looting, burning and rioting cut that crap out? Biden's running mate has strongly intimated on camera that she supports what's going on out in Portland, Seattle and elsewhere! Oh, she stopped short of directly supporting riots, but she got damn close. And -- she's Biden's running mate and made those statements as his running mate, not before.
Then there's the Trump supporter who was stalked and shot in cold blood out west. Rittenhouse was attacked. Maybe that ultimately is ruled self-defense by a jury, and maybe it's not. The man who shot the Trump supporter out west lay in wait for him, targeted him, and killed him in cold blood for purely political purposes. He was not rioting, he was not looting, he was not committing arson and he was shot in the chest. That was a literal political assassination and the guy who committed it was a self-avowed "Antifa."
The assailant committed suicide-by-cop when they tried to arrest him; he pulled a weapon and was shot by police. The irony of that -- threatening a police officer with a firearm usually gets you shot -- appears to have been lost on all the so-called "Black Lives Matter" clowncar brigade. Meanwhile in Chicago the shoot-a-palooza continues on a daily basis with nearly all of both the victims and the shooters being black. Go figure.
As for Covid19, which of course was one of the first topics, did anyone note that Wallace did not mention at all that Pelosi herself along with a number of the Democratic Caucus members dismissed the Coronavirus threat in February and urged people to visit Chinatown at the end of February? Or that virtually the entire Democrat Party, including Biden, considered Trump's China travel ban xenophobic? The fact is that the Democrats almost-universally called Trump racist for banning travel from China when he did it and frankly, we should have done it sooner. Did Wallace mention any of this? No.
Did Trump have answers to his Covid response? No, he did not. And in point of fact he has let a bunch of screamers run riot all over his administration and the states with their "mandates", "lockdowns" and similar. He owns every single bit of it in that he could rescind his "Emergency" right here, right now and stop it all. But Trump was absolutely right about Fauci and masks. Fauci knows they don't work because there's 40 years of science behind that. He said so himself on live television on multiple occasions before "changing his mind" and as I pointed out in my podcast yesterday he has been ignoring known facts on pre-existing immunity since March as well, even to today months after the publication of peer-reviewed scientific papers proving it exists. Indeed, a new publication has shown that we can separate out provable pre-existing immune recognition from that caused by an asymptomatic infection -- and that it's real.
Redfield, Birx, Fauci and others have run around for months repeating the bald-faced lie that said pre-existing immunity is a fantasy. They're doing so in the case of Birx and Fauci with the direct imprimatur of President Trump himself, since he appointed and has not removed them from his self-promoted "task force."
Exactly who deserves the blame for the histrionics, never mind the continuing economic damage those people have ginned up based on scientifically-disproved claims, including billions spent on worthless ventilators that kill you most of the time if used? Who's responsible for the close to $10 million a day we're flushing down the toilet on worthless "tests" that, in asymptomatic persons, are not diagnostic in that they're incapable of discerning between infectious virus and fragments or otherwise-defective components that are biologically harmless!
When you sit in the left seat it's your aircraft. If you dive it into the ground whether or not you took the advice to do so from Fauci, Birx, Redfield and others you still did it and you still own the resulting wreckage along with every dead body whether they're still in the aircraft or in pieces spread over the next half-mile from the point of impact.
How about the Supreme Court? Biden said "let the people decide" and "voting has already started." Well, like it or not when elected you're in the seat for the full four years. That you have parties hell-bent on short-circuiting the election so that if you get caught screwing a goat on Halloween a huge percentage of people have already voted and can't change their mind that's your problem -- and that of the poor fools who didn't wait. Pre-election blow-ups by candidates are nothing new, but the fact remains that you're President for the whole four years until the next inauguration if you lose or are term-limited out. That's how it works and no, the opposing party does not get to change the length of your term by playing screaming toddler. Had the Democrats controlled the Senate when Obama was President Merrick Garland would by on the court today. You know it, I know it and Biden knows it.
Further, neither the Executive or Legislative branches control the Supreme Court docket; it is under their exclusive and non-reviewable authority. There is no means available in the Constitution to force them to either accept or refuse Certiorari in a given case. Having granted it, there is no means to stop them from hearing it on their own schedule. That the Democrats don't like how the court calendar happens to be today is just tough crap, exactly as it has been many times for the Republicans.
Biden's refusal to state whether he supported "packing the court" was telling. That which you will not answer is always presumed to be the most-adverse answer available in any but a criminal proceeding. So Biden does support doing so, which tells me everything I need to know about whether he respects the premise that when you're President you nominate Justices and, if the Senate confirms them, they are seated. I remind you that there is a means to remove a Justice -- you can impeach him or her, provided you can get the votes, and impeachment is a political proceeding; no actual crime need be proved. As with the Senate's Reid who didn't like the results of the filibuster and thus deleted it, only to have it blow up in the Democrat's face after he left office, Biden now advocates the same thing for the Supreme Court.
Down this road lies Civil War. Are you sure you want to walk that way?
Speaking of Civil War, if you're seeking one you could hardly do better than to take the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law to all and turn it on its ear officially through mandatory "training" within the government that teaches that one is a racist because they are white; in other words only a white person can be racist, and all white people are racist -- whether they admit it or not. That's what "critical race theory" is, I remind you, and it's flatly-unconstitutional in the United States to base any public policy upon it. That includes making it a part of the government. We literally went to war in part over exactly this in the 1860s turned the other way around; that blacks were inherently inferior. Want do it again Joe, because your party and others within the government are literally asking for it to happen again -- right here, right now.
As for Biden, could someone please point to one policy measure that Biden actually outlined last night? Just one. He "denied" his support of the Green New Deal which is a bald lie given his own campaign web site.
Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.
WHAT THE ACTUAL ****?
Reality is that our CO2 emissions in the US are approximately where they were in the early 1980s! This is despite having a third more people than we had then, approximately. How is that possible? Fracking; simply put natural gas is cheaper than coal on a per-BTU basis using fracking to recover it from the earth and natural gas, being CH4 where coal is simply C, releases about twice as much energy in BTUs per unit of carbon dioxide returned to the atmosphere from its sequestered, carbon-encapsulated state.
Basic economics did this by the way, not government mandates. Nobody pays $2 for something they can produce for $1 without a gun being shoved in their face.
Yes folks, that's all carbon returned to the planet's atmosphere -- how do you think the carbon got into the ground in the first place? It was sequestered there, nearly all from plant material. That cycle is why every animal on this rock is alive, including us.
The real issue with energy and CO2 release is that while we have a crap-ton of natural gas (although not an inexhaustible amount) other developing nations are coal-rich and natural-gas-poor. India and sub-Saharan Africa have a material percentage of their population, especially the latter, with no reliable electricity in homes. They have coal but not natural gas. In fact in parts of Africa they are using Fischer-Tropsch to obtain liquid hydrocarbons (gas and diesel) from coal because economically it's the best option, even accounting for the losses inherent in doing so. Claiming to be interested in "stopping" alleged "climate change" when we've already, on a per-capita basis, cut our CO2 emissions by a third while developing nations are going to explode logarithmically higher in said emissions, when they out-number us by a factor of more than 3:1 is pure insanity. That is not a plan to actually reduce net carbon emissions on a global basis it is a looting operation aimed at shoving a gun up your nose and forcing to send money to nations that we have no obligation to nor do we receive value in return for same. And it's not a small amount of money in "aid" either; we're talking trillions of dollars here folks. So what is your "plan" given that they're humans and aspire to have more tomorrow than they have today just like every other human does? Eugenics?
Never mind the facts on "electric cars" and similar. We don't mine and refine lithium in the US because the process is nasty and doing it in a way that doesn't foul the environment is so expensive nobody will take it on. Musk is claiming to have a process that evades most of the nasty. He has no scientific evidence or demonstration that he can actually do it, I might add, and while I am not the best chemist I do understand the chemical processes involved in separating and refining out lithium from the Earth. In China they don't get a wet crap about polluting the earth which is why it's done over there -- and not here.
The same problem applies to both solar and wind. Both require raw materials and both have a huge environmental problem on both the front and back end. Wind turbine blades are fiberglass and non-recyclable; worse, they're extraordinarily non-biodegradable. The blades have a fixed life after which they must be replaced. What do you do with the old ones? Lithium batteries are non-recyclable too as it costs more to do so than it does to mine more lithium -- unless you cut off the environmental damage dumped in China and elsewhere, which nobody is or will do.
And oh by the way if you do the math on this you'd roughly have to triple grid capacity. Where do you intend to do that and with what will you generate the energy? I'll tell you where you won't do it -- from wind and solar. The only viable long-term plan to do so given our technology today is thorium-salt reactors (note the date on that linked article); today's uranium/plutonium fission fuel cycle cannot get there as we have no means to deal with the waste generated by using it at that scale. The thorium fuel cycle solves that problem which makes it the only viable energy source for this endeavor. We're not spending a nickel on it, nor is it in the Democrat "green" platform.
That's the real problem -- if you truly claim to be about the global environment then shifting the pollution "over there" is in fact poisoning other people to fund your way of life. If that's not racist would you please explain what would be short of literally murdering people?
Never mind that if you're going to support more people on this rock you want more CO2, not less. We're actually in the lower area of the historical range, believe it or not. Why do you want more? What do you think plants use to grow? CO2 is literally plant food. Would you like more food or less, given the population of the planet? You're not into eugenics, are you?
On issue after issue this was what we saw last night. And it was wildly fertile ground for Trump, but Trump simply can't get there from here because he's too damned interested in trying to play rabid Pit Bull and rip off Biden's nuts instead of going after the substance of the argument and wild bias in the alleged "questions".
Failure to capitalize on any of this was Trump's problem last night -- he played the ******* part perfectly, but what he didn't do was take the first 30 seconds to skewer Wallace, and then the next minute and a half to put the rope up around Biden's neck when it came to February and all the charges of "Racist!" the Democrats slung at him in February and March -- then hang him with it. He could have done the same with the question on the Supreme Court. Trump could have drawn the comparison between what might prove to be a shooting in self-defense and a clear, cold-blooded political assassination. He likely would have given Biden another stroke on the spot had he done so on any of these three points. But he didn't.
I could have left Biden in tears, along with Wallace. But Trump simply can't do it. He lacks the capacity. He always has; show me one example across the last three and a half years demonstrating otherwise. Just take one cheap shot Wallace took last night in trying to go after him on his $750 federal income tax payments. Why didn't Trump shoot back with a thank you to Biden for Pelosi and Obama writing him a $70+ million check on the backs of working people during Obama's Presidency? That's exactly what happened and it would have been a literal mic-drop moment, ruining any claim Biden might have made in terms of helping the middle class. But he didn't do it.
Or take the latest declassified document proving that the Obama White House itself interfered in the election in 2016 and cooked up using the intelligence apparatus (and FBI!) in the United States to go after Trump and his associates. Obama himself, and thus the Obama/Biden administration knew damn well what Hillary was up to because they were briefed on it. That's illegal. Wildly illegal. And Joe Biden was involved in it up to his neck.
But here's the problem -- Trump has known this for 3.5 years. As Commander in Chief he has access to anything classified, no matter what it is. He cannot be refused. He cannot lose his clearance either, which is an interesting quirk, and he can grant a clearance to anyone or declassify anything he chooses. So he's known all this for more than three years and did not declassify and release it immediately in 2016.
He knew felony criminal activity occurred targeting him and it was documented, on paper, that it happened. He had hard proof of indictable, criminal conduct in his hand and did nothing.
He can, as head of the Executive and thus "The Boss" of all Federal Law Enforcement, demand, publicly, that these wildly criminal acts be prosecuted and publicly fire anyone in the DOJ who refuses.
"Law and Order?"
Uh huh. Sure.
Like J. Edgar Hoover eh? Or JFK who, after MLK's march and intimidation, illegally ordered the FBI to go after him?
Oh, you think this sort of crap is new? It most-certainly is not. Hoover was known for it and yet the FBI building has his name on the front of it in DC.
Again -- "Law and Order?"
Folks, this was a poo-slinging contest between two pathological liars neither of whom could stop insulting each other long enough to nail the other with the fact that they were both lying through their teeth. Yeah, Biden didn't fall over dead on-stage, which some people expected. But what can you say about Trump last night -- that Putin or Xi might be scared that in a fit of pique he'd nuke either or both of them?
Explain to me how that advances the interests of the American public.
And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain why we shouldn't sack BOTH political parties via whatever means are necessary and start over. This is the "choice" they allegedly present to us?
I'll be waiting.